havingfitz wrote:bobsnox wrote:the theories are separate; I haven't decided which one is best yet. Obviously Zodiark is not scum if the second theory is accurate. I don't have evidence to clear anyone. I haven't even tried to clear anyone. All of my statements regarding my targets have been couched in terms of probability and likelihood. Zodiark could easily still be scum regardless that I saw no action last night. No scum team in its right mind would send him to do the kill last night as someone pointed out.
That's a horrible replacement post and I'm starting to lean toward leaving Zodiark alone for today and getting rid of the awol slots.
So correct me if I am wrong....
Theory 1- You have evidence that Zodiark is clear (as clear as Parama??? which I would like to hear your reasoning on). But despite this...you are voting him [Zodiark] anyway. BTW...does this mean you think Parama is scum as well since they are both equally clear?
No, I do not have evidence that anyone is clear. I said so plainly here:
bobsnox wrote:Obviously Zodiark is not scum if the second theory is accurate.
I don't have evidence to clear anyone.
I haven't even tried to clear anyone. All of my statements regarding my targets have been couched in terms of probability and likelihood. Zodiark could easily still be scum regardless that I saw no action last night.
I received a "no action" result for both Zodiark and Parama. I am still voting Zodiark because his play has been scumtastic. They are not equally anything, and I would appreciate it if you would cut out the strawman tactic.
havingfitz wrote:Theory 2- All the scum were unavailable/awol and therefore the mod felt it was his duty to execute a random kill on scum's behalf. So therefore anyone who was not present over the last night phase is probably scum. Is that correct? I assume this theory would rely on Zodiark not being scum because he was around. But since you are voting Zodiark and not trying to convince the other's who are voting him that he is "clear," you must really believe he
is
scum which would negate the basis of your 2nd theory.
As I said above,
bobsnox wrote:Obviously Zodiark is not scum if the second theory is accurate.
This isn't a hard concept. I am going with Zodiark being scum for now, but I could abandon that theory in favor of voting you pretty easily.
havingfitz wrote:Also, since you are prepared to base your D3 vote on a "hunch" and not on actual comments or actions that have taken place over the last two plus days (as evidenced by the fact you aren't giving any evidence and calling your suspicions a....."hunch"), why not just ask the mod how he would process the night phase if scum had not submitted a kill?
I'm VOTING someone else not based on that theory. I am voting based on evidence that has happened the last couple days. This is such a waste of time. Besides,
Humble Poirot wrote:In the event that AFK players had night actions they will be performed randomly (unless they have teammates to choose their actions for them).
The biggest issue with my 2nd theory is that the Mod only listed two awol players (antihero and haschel), and I do think there are 3 scum. But if kondi is part of that group, then I can imagine all three scum being awol for an entire night phase.
havingfitz wrote:I don't think his response matters one way or the other because you either think Zodiark is scum (and he was here) or you are saying all 3 scum (assuming 3) were absent. Which is almost more of a stretch than thinking you are town.
I have been in another game where we had more than 3 scum and no one submitted an action or kill in a 72 hour night. It's not unthinkable. Have you gone through the list of players to see who hasn't posted recently? That's very misleading.
havingfitz wrote:As for my last post being horrible....that's funny. If I had come in and said bobsnox is town and put a vote down on Zodiark you probably would have been high fiving me.
I would probably approve of your being correct, yes
what a waste of time this line of argument is.
havingfitz wrote:Preview edit- bobsnox...can you link me to where a PR has claimed?
was my claim not obvious enough?